Vague Dowry Harassment Allegations Insufficient to Summon Additional Accused Under Section 319 CrPC; Mere Repetition of FIR Allegations Insufficient for Summoning Additional Accused During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Sharwan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 08 June 2026
Citation: CRR-2939-2018
Bench: Justice N.S. Shekhawat
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the extraordinary power under Section 319 CrPC cannot be invoked merely on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations against relatives or acquaintances of the principal accused. The Court observed that summoning additional accused requires strong and cogent evidence emerging during trial and not mere reiteration of allegations already found unsubstantiated during investigation.
Summary: The Punjab & Haryana High Court was dealing with a revision petition challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby an application filed under Section 319 CrPC seeking summoning of three additional persons as accused in a dowry death case had been dismissed.
The prosecution case arose from an FIR registered on the complaint of the father of a deceased married woman who died within a short period of her marriage. The complainant alleged that the husband of the deceased, along with certain relatives and an acquaintance, was dissatisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and had subjected her to harassment and cruelty. It was further alleged that the deceased’s death was linked to persistent dowry demands and maltreatment at her matrimonial home.
During investigation, however, the police examined various witnesses, including neighbours and local residents, and found no sufficient material establishing involvement of the proposed accused persons. The allegations against them were found to be general in nature and lacking specific particulars regarding their individual roles. Consequently, they were not sent up for trial and were declared innocent during investigation.
During the course of trial, the complainant sought to invoke Section 319 CrPC and requested that the husband’s relatives and another individual be summoned as additional accused. It was argued that the allegations made in the FIR and the testimony recorded before the trial court clearly established their participation in the acts of harassment allegedly suffered by the deceased. The complainant further contended that the trial court had adopted an unduly technical approach while rejecting the application.
Opposing the plea, the State and the proposed accused submitted that no specific overt acts had been attributed to them either during investigation or during trial. It was argued that the allegations were omnibus and based largely on their relationship with the principal accused. The prosecution further pointed out that there were no prior complaints or independent material specifically implicating them in acts of cruelty or dowry harassment.
Justice N.S. Shekhawat examined the scope of powers under Section 319 CrPC and referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab as well as subsequent Supreme Court decisions governing the exercise of such powers. The Court reiterated that the jurisdiction under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary in nature and must be exercised sparingly. Mere existence of a prima facie case is insufficient; rather, the evidence must be stronger and more compelling than what is ordinarily required at the stage of framing of charge.
The Court observed that the evidence led during trial did not disclose any specific acts attributable to the proposed accused persons. The allegations against the relatives were found to be general and based largely on their familial relationship with the husband. Similarly, no concrete material emerged demonstrating the involvement of the other proposed accused in any dowry-related demand or harassment. The Court noted that the complainant had merely reiterated the allegations contained in the original complaint, which had already been examined and found unsubstantiated during investigation.
Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Hardeep Singh, Omi @ Omkar Rathore and Juhru v. Karim, the Court emphasized that additional accused cannot be summoned routinely or as a matter of course. Unless the evidence appearing during trial is sufficiently strong and credible to indicate involvement in the offence, the extraordinary power under Section 319 CrPC ought not to be exercised.
Decision: Dismissing the revision petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the order refusing to summon the proposed accused under Section 319 CrPC. The Court held that vague and omnibus allegations, unsupported by strong and cogent evidence emerging during trial, do not satisfy the stringent threshold required for invoking the extraordinary power to add new accused during the course of criminal proceedings.